Application of Sub-Graph Isomorphism to Extract Reoccurring Structures from BPMN 2.0 Process Models
-
Upload
marigianna-skouradaki -
Category
Engineering
-
view
23 -
download
0
Transcript of Application of Sub-Graph Isomorphism to Extract Reoccurring Structures from BPMN 2.0 Process Models
University of Stuttgart Universitätsstr. 38 70569 Stuttgart Germany
Phone +49-711-685 88477 Fax +49-711-685 88472
Research
Marigianna Skouradaki, Katharina Görlach, Michael Hahn, Frank Leymann
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems {firstname.lastname}@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de
Applying Subgraph Isomorphism to Extract Reoccurring Structures from BPMN 2.0 Process Models
2 2
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
BPMN 2.0
Process Models
Collection
Fragments
Repository Workload
Mix
Graph
Matching
Selection
Criteria
Composition
Criteria
80%
20%
Motivation: Generation of Realistic Workload
3 3
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Agenda
Process Model Matching
Basic Concepts
Algorithm
Evaluation & Validation
Conclusions & Outlook
5 5
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
BPMN 2.0 Collection Characteristics
Detect the reoccurring structures on BPMN 2.0 process models which:
Might be anonymized (no text information available)
Might be mock-up models (non-executable)
8 8
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Matching Executional Information
log
Comparing produced execution logs
Cannot be applied on mock-up models
log
2
10 10
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
The Challenge of Graph Isomorphism
NonDeterministic Polynomial
Time
(NP – Complete)
The time required to solve the
problem using any currently
known algorithm increases very
quickly as the size of the
problem grows.
11 11
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Subgraph Isomorphism on BPMN 2.0 Process Models
BPMN 2.0 Process Models are special types of graphs
Subgraph isomorphism can be applied in lower complexity1
1 R. M Verma.; and S. W. Reyner; “An analysis of a good algorithm for the subtree problem, correlated,” SIAM J. Comput., vol. 18, no. 5,
pp. 906–908, Oct. 1989.
16 16
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Process Fragment
A Process Fragment is a piece of process model with loose completeness and consistency. The existence of process
graph elements (start, end, activities, context etc.) is possible but not imperative in a process fragment.
However, a process fragment must have at least one activity and there must be a way to convert it to an
executable process graph.2
1. It is not necessarily related with a complete process model
2. A starting point is not defined
3. Existence of split or merge node is optional
2D. Schumm, F. Leymann, Z. Ma, T. Scheibler, and S. Strauch, “Integrating Compliance into Business Processes: Process Fragments as
Reusable Compliance Controls” in MKWI’10, Göttingen, Germany, February 23-25, 2010, Ed., Conference Paper, pp. 2125–2137.
17 17
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments (RPFs)
Checkpoint (the starting points)
A pre-configured type of node that is used as start point of the “extended” process fragments
Relevant Process Fragment
Exists in at least K business processes
Starts with a checkpoint
Has at least N nodes including the checkpoint
Contains at least one activity
18 18
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
19 19
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
20 20
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
RPF
RPF
21 21
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
22 22
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
RPF
RPF
23 23
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
24 24
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Checkpoints & Relevant Process Fragments
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
RPF
26 26
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
27 27
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
28 28
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
29 29
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
30 30
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
31 31
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
32 32
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
33 33
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
34 34
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
35 35
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
36 36
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
37 37
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
38 38
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
39 39
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
40 40
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
41 41
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
42 42
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
43 43
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
44 44
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
45 45
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
46 46
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
47 47
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
48 48
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
49 49
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
50 50
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
51 51
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
52 52
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
53 53
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
54 54
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Algorithm: Discovery of RPFs
K = 2 Process Models Checkpoints: Events, Gateways N = 3 Nodes
…continue likewise..
Will not work for cycles
56 56
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Validation & Evaluation
46 artificial BPMN 2.0 Process Models
BPMN 2.0 Standard Example Processes
Models used in Pietsch and Wenzel, 2012
2070 Comparisons
Scenario 1: {events,
gateways}
Scenario 2: {events,
gateways, tasks}
59 59
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Comparison Complexity:
Number of totally
compared checkpoint flows
Execution Times vs. Comparison Complexities
60 60
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Average Execution Time vs. Average Comparison Complexity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600
Avera
ge E
xec
uti
on
Tim
es (
ms
)
Average Comparison Complexities
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
O(n log n)
61 61
Re
sea
rch
© Marigianna Skouradaki
Conclusions & Outlook
Set the theoretical framework
Sub-graph isomorphism on BPMN 2.0 process models
The algorithm can run in logarithmic complexity (experimental)
Definition of checkpoints is not important for timing, but for filtering and clustering
Theoretical proof of the algorithm’s complexity
Apply filtering
Assign frequency values
Increase expressiveness of Comparison Complexity
Thank you!
Questions?